Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Acute Stress Disorder: Rates Following Different Types of Traumatic Events
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies investigating rates of acute stress disorder following exposure to a traumatic event report widely varying results, even when examining the same types of traumatic events. The first purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to describe rates of acute stress disorder following five different types of traumatic events. The second goal was to assess the methodological and trauma-related factors influencing these rates. Between May 2017 and October 2019, studies were identified by searching through the PsychINFO, PubMed/Medline, OVID, CINAHL, Scopus, and PILOTS databases. Records were included if (1) participants were 16 years old and over, (2) the assessment was completed within 30 days of the event, (3) a standardized assessment instrument was utilized, (4) the type of traumatic event was specified, and (5) the acute stress disorder rate was reported. The list of traumatic events used for the search strategy was based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and was complemented by those listed in the Life Events Checklist and the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Seventy-three samples from 70 studies totaling 20,065 participants met inclusion criteria. Results revealed that rates of acute stress disorder ranged from 14.1% for war-related trauma to 36.0% for interpersonal trauma. Interpersonal trauma was significantly more likely to lead to acute stress disorder than other types of events, except for disaster-related trauma. Differing assessment instruments, types of exposure and geographical locations, and the intentional nature of certain events contributed to heterogeneity in rates within each type of traumatic event.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it